Ars and Artifex in the Ars Poetica: Revisiting the Question of Structure

Ars andArtifex in theArs Poética: Revisiting the Question ofStructure Leon Golden Florida State University The history of disagreement about the structure of Horace's Ars Poética is a long one. Rudd (21-25) offers us a concise survey of the scholarship on this question in this century and notes that the figure of Neoptolemus plays a large role in it. Greatweight has been given to the widely cited commentbythe scholiast Porphyrion that Horace included the teachings ofNeoptolemus in his poem: "not indeed all ofthem but the most important ones." The difficult problem to be faced, however, was that onlyfragments ofNeoptolemus had survived and so not much ofpracticalvalue couldhe donewith Porphyrion's suggestive comment. The situation changedwhen, in 1918,Jensen published a papyrus containing fragments ofthe fifth book ofPhilodemus' "On Poems." Rudd points out that Philodemus, "using an intermediate source (a certain Philomelus), criticized a number of earlier authorities, one of whose names ended in -t??ßµ,??." By restoring the name "Neoptolemus" on the basis ofthis fragmentary reference, Rudd points out (24), "scholars were nowable, ifonlyindirecdy, to recoversome oftheviews ofHorace's putative source." On the basis of this fragmentary evidence, scholars 142SYLLECTA CLASSICA 1 1 (2000) have occupied themselves both in attempting to reconstruct Neoptolemus's literarytheories anddemonstratingtheireffecton Horace. Jensen had pointed out that according to Philodemus the concepts of poiema,poiesis andpoietesplayed large roles in Neoptolemus' treatise. A new dilemma now arose because, although the reference to "poet" {potetes) was clear, the precise meanings and applications ofpoiema and poiesis were under dispute. Concerning the structure of the Ars, from Norden (1905), to Jensen (1918), to Brink (1963) and Rudd (1989), a whole series ofsuggestions have been made which either apply the categories thathave been attributedto Neoptolemus in quite differentways to the interpretation ofthe poem, or ignore them completely.1 None of them has yet achieved canonical status. I cite below the persuasive reasons Rudd gives to be suspicious ofthe tripartite structure attributed to Neoptolemus/Philodemus. I agree with Rudd's scepticism and will present in this paper an argument for a very different principle oforganization for the Ars. We must also take note ofone additional and quite radical interpretative suggestion made by Bernard Frischer concerning the identity of the narrator in this poem. Frischer (61) sees in xhe Ars a "parody ofa pedantic member ofthe grammarian tribe" to whom the narrator offers "an intentionally misleading 'instruction booklet'" replete with recipes for writing poetry that are deliberately "trite and bland" so that "the unwitting imitator, eagerlyfollowingHorace's instructions, ends upwith very little poetic sustenance." Frischer's approach has been rejected by others coming after him, although he is quite correct to note the "trite and bland" characteristics ofmuch ofthe advice Horace gives, at least in the first halfof the poem.2 In this paper I will offer a very different interpretation ofthe identity ofthe narrator oftheArs, arguing that we have here the authenticvoice ofa matureand deadlyserious poet, most 1 See Rudd, 24-25. 2 For opposition to Frischer see Oberhelman and Armstong (236, note 19): "We accept Frischer's date ofthe late 20s, although we are by no means willing to accept his theoryofTheArtofPoetryas a mock didactic poem." See also Mayers reviewofFrischer in CR42 (1992, 442), and thedifferingjudgments in the reviewsbySacks andKeyser in BMCR 5 (1992, 112-22). GOLDEN: ARSAND ARTIFEXIN THE ARS POÉTICA143 probably Horace himself, and not the musings ofa pedantic critic or poetaster.3 I focus now on one ofthe long-standing issues that has dominated discussion ofthe^re: the putative influence ofearlier literary criticism on the structure of the poem, with special reference to Aristode and Neoptolemus. How radical the difference ofopinion on this subject is can be seen from the widely opposed approaches taken by Brink and Rudd. Brink devoted immense energy to providing an exhaustive survey ofthe ancient evidence, with the goal ofoffering the strongest possible justification for the view that "the technical sub-stratum .. . and many ofthe technical details ofthe Ars were certainly traditional, and probably derived by Horace from Neoptolemus's work on literary theory."4 Rudd presents us with a wry subversion of the value of expending so much intellectual capital in supporting this position (25): Our failure to discern...